Both sides of this election have expressed a desire to form a trial system. In brief, this would be a council with a set of members who, together, would make decisions in terms of what sort of consequences there would be for members who are considered to be unwelcome and harmful to the site. I find this idea ridiculous and laughable, and for various reasons. Most importantly because active moderation is a far more effective solution than this proposed system, which no site I've come across uses. We're not the only special community, although in some ways we do stand out. I blame this on lack of stricter moderation, because everything that is dramatic and conflicting on the site can be resolved with active moderation. Period.

Moreover, this would be yet another way for some members to have special recognition on the site, and have their egos fed. Be not fooled by those who perceive themselves to be of higher importance and status because they are in a better position to be on such a council. If anything, this election should have taught everyone what sort of people there are to be found in this community, and how integrity, trust, fairness, and objective decision-making is severely lacking when people are in a good position to acquire a status that serves them well.

The responsibility for dealing with issues on the site lies within moderation, which the community can help reform in the future. I understand many of you have no experience with other forum sites, but for most who have, it is apparent that creating systems beyond traditional moderation is pure nonsense, and that conflicts and drama are symptoms of lack of rule enforcement. End.

Glad to see you're openly contradicting your candidate's platform as well as the idea that the community, rather than one arbitrary, non-elected, non-representative member, should decide what is and is not beneficial to itself.

At 12/14/2014 6:26:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:Glad to see you're openly contradicting your candidate's platform as well as the idea that the community, rather than one arbitrary, non-elected, non-representative member, should decide what is and is not beneficial to itself.

I disagree with the proposed system which both sides seemingly want, and I always make room for my own thoughts to be made crystal clear. The presidency differs to the proposed trial system, although I by no means think importantly of the role as most do in the election.

At 12/14/2014 6:26:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:Glad to see you're openly contradicting your candidate's platform as well as the idea that the community, rather than one arbitrary, non-elected, non-representative member, should decide what is and is not beneficial to itself.

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

At 12/14/2014 6:26:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:Glad to see you're openly contradicting your candidate's platform as well as the idea that the community, rather than one arbitrary, non-elected, non-representative member, should decide what is and is not beneficial to itself.

Normally, people quote others when they actually understand what has been said. Can the same be said in your case?

At 12/14/2014 6:26:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:Glad to see you're openly contradicting your candidate's platform as well as the idea that the community, rather than one arbitrary, non-elected, non-representative member, should decide what is and is not beneficial to itself.

I disagree with the proposed system which both sides seemingly want, and I always make room for my own thoughts to be made crystal clear. The presidency differs to the proposed trial system, although I by no means think importantly of the role as most do in the election.

That's absolutely fair, although the second half of my statement was more important than the first.

At 12/14/2014 6:26:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:Glad to see you're openly contradicting your candidate's platform as well as the idea that the community, rather than one arbitrary, non-elected, non-representative member, should decide what is and is not beneficial to itself.

Normally, people quote others when they actually understand what has been said. Can the same be said in your case?

Excuse me? Go fvck yourself.

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

At 12/14/2014 6:26:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:Glad to see you're openly contradicting your candidate's platform as well as the idea that the community, rather than one arbitrary, non-elected, non-representative member, should decide what is and is not beneficial to itself.

Normally, people quote others when they actually understand what has been said. Can the same be said in your case?

Are you really the guy that Blade wanted to set a standard for perfect forum conduct?

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

At 12/14/2014 6:30:56 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:That's absolutely fair, although the second half of my statement was more important than the first.

Feel free to elaborate on the second part.

I'd probably share some of your sentiments regarding a "council' to judge "toxic members." Any council would have to be established with the utmost caution. But having a debate, like what was done with Izbo, permits the community to use its own voice. Moderators are inherently despotic by virtue of their position (if unelected, which is generally the case). This often brings them to a standard that transcends the reasonable. Moderators are as imperfect as anyone else. Their judgment may, in many cases, be arbitrary or biased. DDO is a genuine community in many aspects. Why shouldn't the community get to decide what is and isn't toxic to it? Why does it not deserve that power?

At 12/14/2014 6:34:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:Are you really the guy that Blade wanted to set a standard for perfect forum conduct?

Perfect conduct is not expected of anybody, neither in my role. What I said to you is an apparent expression of doubt from my side as to whether you actually understood what he meant. Your vile comment, in return, is uncalled for, and if moderation existed on the site, you'd have received part of your punishment.

At 12/14/2014 6:34:30 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:Are you really the guy that Blade wanted to set a standard for perfect forum conduct?

Perfect conduct is not expected of anybody, neither in my role. What I said to you is an apparent expression of doubt from my side as to whether you actually understood what he meant. Your vile comment, in return, is uncalled for, and if moderation existed on the site, you'd have received part of your punishment.

Your comment was obviously supposed to provoke me. Let me ask again: do you want to play this game with me?

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

At 12/14/2014 6:21:54 PM, Mirza wrote:Both sides of this election have expressed a desire to form a trial system. In brief, this would be a council with a set of members who, together, would make decisions in terms of what sort of consequences there would be for members who are considered to be unwelcome and harmful to the site. I find this idea ridiculous and laughable, and for various reasons. Most importantly because active moderation is a far more effective solution than this proposed system, which no site I've come across uses. We're not the only special community, although in some ways we do stand out. I blame this on lack of stricter moderation, because everything that is dramatic and conflicting on the site can be resolved with active moderation. Period.

Moreover, this would be yet another way for some members to have special recognition on the site, and have their egos fed. Be not fooled by those who perceive themselves to be of higher importance and status because they are in a better position to be on such a council. If anything, this election should have taught everyone what sort of people there are to be found in this community, and how integrity, trust, fairness, and objective decision-making is severely lacking when people are in a good position to acquire a status that serves them well.

The responsibility for dealing with issues on the site lies within moderation, which the community can help reform in the future. I understand many of you have no experience with other forum sites, but for most who have, it is apparent that creating systems beyond traditional moderation is pure nonsense, and that conflicts and drama are symptoms of lack of rule enforcement. End.

Meh. It's just like a mini version of politics in the real world. No system can be entirely virtuous. If anything it brings that connection of real world politics to the DDO for people to engage in.

"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

At 12/14/2014 6:36:42 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:I'd probably share some of your sentiments regarding a "council' to judge "toxic members." Any council would have to be established with the utmost caution.

There can be advisers. Or multiple moderators to discuss matters. There is no need for a new council.

But having a debate, like what was done with Izbo, permits the community to use its own voice. Moderators are inherently despotic by virtue of their position (if unelected, which is generally the case). This often brings them to a standard that transcends the reasonable. Moderators are as imperfect as anyone else. Their judgment may, in many cases, be arbitrary or biased. DDO is a genuine community in many aspects. Why shouldn't the community get to decide what is and isn't toxic to it? Why does it not deserve that power?

I agree that moderators can wrong, and the community should have a say. However, the trial system isn't exactly a mere expression of the community's voice. The community can discuss rules, and have them changed, or argue that X member was banned for a completely irrational reason - and so forth. Electing a council, however, would still limit the voice of the community, for they would no longer have a voice in case certain members are allowed to make decisions.

Active moderation with a very limited number of advisers is the way to go. Other sites have multiple moderators who together discuss ban appeals and more. It works.

At 12/13/2014 6:57:05 PM, Mikal wrote:I stated that from the very start, at day 1. I have heard ad homs this entire election and i'm perfectly fine with it now. I expected it to be heated, but if you are going to insult me please do it another thread where all the other people are doing it. This is for voting

I have been called everything from A-Z here, and now even so by blades admin. It makes me sad, but nothing I can do about it

best of luck and sorry you feel that way

Sure, sure. I'll refrain from commenting further to avoid causing a more negative atmosphere. Hopefully the rest of the folks can see what you're doing here. :)

You're out of line.

Respect my decision not to comment here negatively. To state what you did is an attempt to provoke me, which I do not appreciate. Refrain from responding when I said I would do the same. Understand?

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

At 12/14/2014 6:36:42 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:I'd probably share some of your sentiments regarding a "council' to judge "toxic members." Any council would have to be established with the utmost caution.

There can be advisers. Or multiple moderators to discuss matters. There is no need for a new council.

My understanding is that Airmax has been anywhere from indifferent to hostile to the prospect of multiple moderators.

But having a debate, like what was done with Izbo, permits the community to use its own voice. Moderators are inherently despotic by virtue of their position (if unelected, which is generally the case). This often brings them to a standard that transcends the reasonable. Moderators are as imperfect as anyone else. Their judgment may, in many cases, be arbitrary or biased. DDO is a genuine community in many aspects. Why shouldn't the community get to decide what is and isn't toxic to it? Why does it not deserve that power?

I agree that moderators can wrong, and the community should have a say. However, the trial system isn't exactly a mere expression of the community's voice. The community can discuss rules, and have them changed, or argue that X member was banned for a completely irrational reason - and so forth. Electing a council, however, would still limit the voice of the community, for they would no longer have a voice in case certain members are allowed to make decisions.

So what if this was done independently of a council? Just open voting on a debate to remove the toxic user in question? The moderator can even check that power by determining whether the votes are legitimate or just based on unpopularity.

Active moderation with a very limited number of advisers is the way to go. Other sites have multiple moderators who together discuss ban appeals and more. It works.

I could conceivably get behind this proposal if the community had a say in selecting its moderators.

It may sound a bit biased... but I believe the members of this site already in the Military or receiving training in Law Enforcement should definitely be on this panel. I can't fully speak for the others, but every day, I swear to abide by my city's code of conduct and by CPDs own code of honor. While I may not make the final cut, I would be honored to be considered.

At 12/14/2014 6:36:42 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:I'd probably share some of your sentiments regarding a "council' to judge "toxic members." Any council would have to be established with the utmost caution.

There can be advisers. Or multiple moderators to discuss matters. There is no need for a new council.

My understanding is that Airmax has been anywhere from indifferent to hostile to the prospect of multiple moderators.

But having a debate, like what was done with Izbo, permits the community to use its own voice. Moderators are inherently despotic by virtue of their position (if unelected, which is generally the case). This often brings them to a standard that transcends the reasonable. Moderators are as imperfect as anyone else. Their judgment may, in many cases, be arbitrary or biased. DDO is a genuine community in many aspects. Why shouldn't the community get to decide what is and isn't toxic to it? Why does it not deserve that power?

I agree that moderators can wrong, and the community should have a say. However, the trial system isn't exactly a mere expression of the community's voice. The community can discuss rules, and have them changed, or argue that X member was banned for a completely irrational reason - and so forth. Electing a council, however, would still limit the voice of the community, for they would no longer have a voice in case certain members are allowed to make decisions.

So what if this was done independently of a council? Just open voting on a debate to remove the toxic user in question? The moderator can even check that power by determining whether the votes are legitimate or just based on unpopularity.

Active moderation with a very limited number of advisers is the way to go. Other sites have multiple moderators who together discuss ban appeals and more. It works.

I could conceivably get behind this proposal if the community had a say in selecting its moderators.

1harder, PM me if you have an issue with me. I have an issue with you, too. My conduct is not perfect, but its imperfect form nevertheless does not allow me to lose control and tell you everything I feel about you at the moment. I learned with age that it is not worth the cause to lose temper and lash out excessively. PM me if you have an issue; or call me out publicly in another thread and amass people to talk about how evil I am, or whatever you wish. Try to stay out of my thread dedicated to a rather serious topic.

At 12/14/2014 6:21:54 PM, Mirza wrote:Both sides of this election have expressed a desire to form a trial system. In brief, this would be a council with a set of members who, together, would make decisions in terms of what sort of consequences there would be for members who are considered to be unwelcome and harmful to the site. I find this idea ridiculous and laughable, and for various reasons. Most importantly because active moderation is a far more effective solution than this proposed system, which no site I've come across uses. We're not the only special community, although in some ways we do stand out. I blame this on lack of stricter moderation, because everything that is dramatic and conflicting on the site can be resolved with active moderation. Period.

Moreover, this would be yet another way for some members to have special recognition on the site, and have their egos fed. Be not fooled by those who perceive themselves to be of higher importance and status because they are in a better position to be on such a council. If anything, this election should have taught everyone what sort of people there are to be found in this community, and how integrity, trust, fairness, and objective decision-making is severely lacking when people are in a good position to acquire a status that serves them well.

The responsibility for dealing with issues on the site lies within moderation, which the community can help reform in the future. I understand many of you have no experience with other forum sites, but for most who have, it is apparent that creating systems beyond traditional moderation is pure nonsense, and that conflicts and drama are symptoms of lack of rule enforcement. End.

I appreciate this view and agree with it to be honest. I'd much rather see moderators come down harder on the less desirable members of this community than allow a new council to deal with them.

And I agree, the problem that we have now is due to an absence of stricter moderation, which is really what we should be pushing for, not members judging members which is very open to both corruption and lenient decisions (aka not banning when needed).

"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"

At 12/14/2014 6:36:42 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:I'd probably share some of your sentiments regarding a "council' to judge "toxic members." Any council would have to be established with the utmost caution.

There can be advisers. Or multiple moderators to discuss matters. There is no need for a new council.

My understanding is that Airmax has been anywhere from indifferent to hostile to the prospect of multiple moderators.

But having a debate, like what was done with Izbo, permits the community to use its own voice. Moderators are inherently despotic by virtue of their position (if unelected, which is generally the case). This often brings them to a standard that transcends the reasonable. Moderators are as imperfect as anyone else. Their judgment may, in many cases, be arbitrary or biased. DDO is a genuine community in many aspects. Why shouldn't the community get to decide what is and isn't toxic to it? Why does it not deserve that power?

I agree that moderators can wrong, and the community should have a say. However, the trial system isn't exactly a mere expression of the community's voice. The community can discuss rules, and have them changed, or argue that X member was banned for a completely irrational reason - and so forth. Electing a council, however, would still limit the voice of the community, for they would no longer have a voice in case certain members are allowed to make decisions.

So what if this was done independently of a council? Just open voting on a debate to remove the toxic user in question? The moderator can even check that power by determining whether the votes are legitimate or just based on unpopularity.

Active moderation with a very limited number of advisers is the way to go. Other sites have multiple moderators who together discuss ban appeals and more. It works.

I could conceivably get behind this proposal if the community had a say in selecting its moderators.

At 12/14/2014 6:45:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:My understanding is that Airmax has been anywhere from indifferent to hostile to the prospect of multiple moderators.

The issue is probably with the way the moderator system works

So what if this was done independently of a council? Just open voting on a debate to remove the toxic user in question? The moderator can even check that power by determining whether the votes are legitimate or just based on unpopularity.

*Why* debate? The rules are clear. Everyone who is a member accepted them. The only thing that would need a discussion, not a debate on, is whether or not someone *did* break the rules. If someone continually harasses others, insults them due to their race continually and whatnot, this person is violating the rules, and should receive a ban. Should this not count as a violation of the rules? Then the community should push for changes. That doesn't require a council.

I could conceivably get behind this proposal if the community had a say in selecting its moderators.

At 12/14/2014 6:50:04 PM, Mirza wrote:1harder, PM me if you have an issue with me. I have an issue with you, too. My conduct is not perfect, but its imperfect form nevertheless does not allow me to lose control and tell you everything I feel about you at the moment. I learned with age that it is not worth the cause to lose temper and lash out excessively. PM me if you have an issue; or call me out publicly in another thread and amass people to talk about how evil I am, or whatever you wish. Try to stay out of my thread dedicated to a rather serious topic.

I've interacted with you twice in the past 24 hours. You came across to me as a douche both times. Sorry that I told you to fvck off: but I don't want to talk to you.

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

At 12/14/2014 6:50:50 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:I appreciate this view and agree with it to be honest. I'd much rather see moderators come down harder on the less desirable members of this community than allow a new council to deal with them.

And I agree, the problem that we have now is due to an absence of stricter moderation, which is really what we should be pushing for, not members judging members which is very open to both corruption and lenient decisions (aka not banning when needed).

At 12/14/2014 6:46:30 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:Yes but in many ways this DDO political system is similar to real world politics and how people act in them so I see as a prelude for us as we get older.

Essentially, you are explaining why people may desire concepts enacted that share similar characteristics to genuine politics. That is an interesting psychological case, and I agree. However, in no way does that mean we should have the concepts implemented.